Back
2012 MarsdenLR 1440
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LIM LEK YAN @ LIM TECK YAM – Appellant
Versus
YAYASAN MELAKA (ENCLS 6 7 AND 15) – Respondent
[Suit No: D-22NCC-1823-211/2011]
The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of matters already adjudicated, ensuring finality in judgments once all appeals have been exhausted.
Headnote:(A) High Court Rules 1980 - Order 18 Rule 19 - Doctrine of Res Judicata - Plaintiff's applications to set aside Summary Judgment and originating summons were dismissed as the matters had been previously adjudicated. It was established that litigation cannot be relitigated after all appeal avenues are exhausted. (Paras 1, 8, 30)
(B) Abuse of Process - Claims arising from earlier suits cannot be relitigated unless new substantive legal grounds emerge. (Paras 26, 28)
(C) Indemnity Agreement - The liability of the Plaintiff under the indemnity agreement remains intact regardless of the status of Photran's liabilities as established by prior judgments. (Paras 20, 22, 36)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a shareholder of Photran Corporation, sought to challenge multiple judgments across several suits including a Summary Judgment obtained against him in 2003. The defense argued that the Plaintiff lacked reasonable cause of action and that his claims were frivolous and vexatious.
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff's claim was struck out due to the principles of res judicata, lack of reasonable cause of action, and abuse of process. The Court affirmed that the Plaintiff had exhausted all avenues of appeal against prior judgments and could not relitigate them now.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the Plaintiff had a valid claim to set aside previous judgments, assess the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, and determine if the Plaintiff could withdraw with liberty to file afresh after full submissions made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Summary Judgment was properly obtained and standing judgments were affirmed by higher courts. The doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process prevented the Plaintiff from relitigating the same issues in a new suit.
Result: Plaintiff's suit was struck out with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. litigation and finality in judgments. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendants contention on plaintiff's lack of cause. (Para 2 , 10) |
| 3. plaintiff's obligations and agreement details. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. abuse of process via multiplication of litigation. (Para 12) |
| 5. reasonable cause of action and merits. (Para 13 , 19) |
| 6. functus officio and inability to review final judgments. (Para 22 , 23) |
[1] The Plaintiff in this suit has brought a claim to set aside a judgment entered against him by the Defendant by way of summary judgment in the High Court way back in 2003. He had exhausted all avenues of appeal up to the Federal Court where he failed in his leave application to appeal to the Federal Court. He even filed an application to review the refusal of leave to appeal to the Federal Court and that too had been dismissed. There was also another order of the High Court in 2010 made in favour of the Defendant in an originating summons matter that the Plaintiff also sought to set aside in this suit. In that matter there was no appeal filed whatsoever. Does the law allow for a matter that has been litigated to be relitigated?
[2] The Defendant was convinced that the Plaintiff do not have a justifiable cause to do that and it applied to have the Plaintiff's suit struck out.
Parties
[3] The Plaintiff here was a shareholder and director of a company called Photran Corporation Sdn Bhd ("Photran"). The Defendant ("Yayasan") is a body corporate incorporated under the Melaka Enactment No 4 of 1994 and it holds 70% of the issued share capital of Photran. The Defendant agreed to be a joint venturer in Photran to manufacture and market high performance optical and electricity conductive film coated products. Various agreements were signed by the parties to regulate their relationship in Photran. Of relevance to this proceeding would be a Loan Agreement between the Defendant and Photran dated 26 June 1997. By that Loan Agreement the Defendant granted a loan to Photran for RM 9.2 million ("Loan"). The Loan was to be repaid within 24 months.
[4] The Plaintiff also issued to the Defendant a "Shareholder Letter of Indemnity" dated 26 July 1997 wherein the Plaintiff agreed to indemnify the Defendant for the Loan in the event that Photran should fail to repay the Loan.
Problem
[5] Photran did fail to pay the Loan and so the Defendant commenced a suit in Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No.: D8-22-1054-2003 ("2003 Suit") against Photran as the 1st Defendant (D1) and the Plaintiff here as the 2nd Defendant (D2) there. Photran, at that time was already controlled by the Defendant who had decided not to enter an appearance. A judgment in default was thus entered against Photran.
[6] The Plaintiff as D2 in the 2003 Suit filed his Defence and Counterclaim. The Defendant here as Plaintiff there filed an application for Summary Judgment and an application to strike out the Counterclaim. Both the applications were allowed by the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR") and the Deputy Registrar respectively. On appeal the learned Judge Abdul Wahab Said J on 25 October 2005 affirmed the Summary Judgment entered and the striking out of the Counterclaim ("2003 Judgment"). On appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Plaintiff, the Court of Appeal on 12 June 2007 dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the 2003 Judgment. The Plaintiff was undaunted and he applied for leave to appeal from the Federal Court which on 7 January 2008 dismissed his leave application. With dogged determination the Plaintiff pursued further with an application to review the decision of the Federal Court in refusing leave. That too was dismissed by the Federal Court on 3 June 2009.
[7] Reverting to the Judgment in default ("JID") that was taken against Photran, it transpired that a winding-up order was made against it on 12 August 2008. However the Plaintiff saw a glimmer of hope when on 30 November 2010, upon the Plaintiff's application for sanction, the Official
[8] Receiver for Photran granted sanction to
